Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike language added during the committee markup that prevents the U.S. Geological Survey from consolidating its older and obsolete mapping centers into a single…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike language added during the committee markup that prevents the U.S. Geological Survey from consolidating its older and obsolete mapping centers into a single consolidated national geospatial technical operations center.
According to the agency, the consolidation is critical to the USGS's ability to lead the Nation in facilitating and leveraging geospatial information services.
The centers USGS is attempting to consolidate were established many years ago to support a large field-based workforce spread out across the country when map production involved exhaustive field survey and was more manually intensive. That was fine back then, but it makes no sense now.
USGS, by their own admission, no longer manually collects and plots this kind of information, nor do they print a large volume of maps. Advanced technologies like remote sensing, we have all seen Google Earth, along with consumer demand for easy access to digital products have the USGS role.
The language in my amendment would strike needlessly imposing a 20th century paradigm on an agency that is desperately trying to make its way into the 21st century. This consolidation is not only saving taxpayers money, but it will create a more effective, efficient and modern USGS that is better prepared to work with partners in the State, local and private sectors.
In addition, it will make the agency more user friendly, a better place to respond to the needs of the most important customers, the U.S. taxpayer. This consolidation plan announced in September of last year has been rigorously reviewed twice, once by an internal USGS review team and again by the Interior Department Inspector General.
Both found the process leading to the decision to consolidate the facilities was open, fair and adequate. The mission of the USGS is to serve the Nation by providing reliable, scientific information to describe and understand the Earth, minimize loss of property from natural disasters, manage water, biological energy and mineral resources and enhance and protect the quality of life.
Its mission is not to maintain antiquated facilities or outmoded paradigms to serve the parochial interests of the State or the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I do intend to withdraw this amendment, but I first would yield to my colleague from Colorado.
I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. I hope we can work together on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment that would prevent the use of funds to delay action on a petition to remove the so-called Preble's Jumping Mouse from the Endangered Species List.
I say so-called, because in December of 2003, a scientific study conducted by biologists and the Chair of the Denver Museum of National History's zoology department, concluded that the Preble's Mouse is, in fact, not really a valid subspecies at all.
Ms. Ramey's findings contradicted a 1950 study based on just three museum specimens. That was the basis of the original ``threatened'' designation. Ironically, the Arizona professor who conducted the study a half century ago himself now agrees that Ramey's research invalidates his findings.
In early 2005, in the wake of Ramey's study, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined the petition to delist the mouse was warranted, and the agency began the delisting process. Better late than never, although that belated policy shift is not much of a consolation to those who have coughed up an estimate $8 to $17 each year in compliance costs.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that Dr. Ramey's work and the courage of former Interior Secretary Gail Norton to take action on it were important steps in our effort to base conservation decisions on science instead of politics or emotion.
Unfortunately, however, progress is stalled. In January of this year, the bureaucracy questioned the Ramey study, and in February the agency pushed back a decision on the delisting petition for another 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, I feel the agency is falling back into the all too familiar analysis paralysis that has become the hallmark of the Federal resources agency.
Quick action on this petition is extremely important to the people of my congressional district. I hope we can work together to ensure the agency's bureaucrats do not successfully subject this delisting petition to death by delay.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
I appreciate the chairman's attention to this issue. It is an extremely critical one in my area.